blatham wrote:It may be that situations will demand a decrease in hubris, and a sort of forced maturity, and that such is shown in the changes in rhetoric. It may be that Bush and Rove have the goal Gergen attributes to them but that achieving this very goal will force them to at least speak in a concilliatory tone, and maybe even to operate that way at least until they have pulled American military away from danger.
But do I think they care at all about honesty and transparency? No. Do I think they care much about democracy in the sense we three understand that word? No. Or much about Amnesty style human rights. No.
I think I might not have made myself clear here. I don't for a second believe that Rice and Bush have suddenly converted to Amnesty style human rights as the guiding principle in their heart. I think I said as much.
What I'm saying is that's, to some degree, immaterial. We all know that Bush & co. are no liberal humanitarians who'll enthusiasically join
Food Not Bombs. We (over here on this side) all know that a Democratic President would be slightly more likely to be so. OK, established. Now, we can either repeat this overall blanket truth for the next four years and see things purely in terms of our own good vs evil schemes, hoping that somehow that same approach will succeed in 2008 when it clearly failed in 2004, or we can take that bottom-line observation (yes, Bush-style conservatives are likely to engage in realpolitik, yes, they'll be agressively interventionist, no, they dont really care much about the Amnesty mindset), and then take a closer look at whatever else is happening / changing /developing. Just observing that they're not us and that they're worse and that the danger is that they'll hang on to power forever isn't still much of an analysis when it comes to figuring out what exactly is going on here, in terms of internal dynamics, change over time, immediate risks and opportunities.
Lemme propose an analogy. Professors in Soviet Studies used to be dubbed, sarcastically, "Kremlin-watchers". They'd scrutinise every speech and declaration for individual words or hints that might point to some incremental change in the Soviet regime's goings-on one way or another. Now a disinterested Cold Warrior might have said at any time: "illusions! You're engaging in mirror games! It's not like the Soiets have suddenly converted to democracy ... they're still out to prop up the same dictatorship!". And fundamentally, he'd be right of course. We knew that. But then what? Thats
not where the story ends. Khrushchev was no Stalin. Brezhnev in the late sixties presided over a different regime than he did in the late seventies. Life inside the Soviet Union and for those in the satellite states was very different in 1963 than in 1953. Changes, serious changes, can occur within what fundamentally still is a suspicion-worthy system, that are most worth picking up on nevertheless. And rhetorics - which phrases are being used, which slogans are being put out there - can herald change this way or that way within the fundamental parameters of a government we don't like.
Basically, I guess I'm warning against a straw man. No, Rice hasn't suddenly turned into a mushy Amnesty activist. Duh. And? Thing is, if this administration will indeed exchange, quite emphatically, the warmongering, Wild West posturing language of "with us or against us", "axis of evil", "bring it on", "dead or alive", with the language of wanting to promote "the freedom of the market square" in remaining "outposts of tyranny", that is, just already by itself, going to create change. For one, in how other countries see the US, and thus on the dynamics of international politics.
Now in your response to that, you [plural] are likely to focus on the US domestic consequences, noting that hah!, that's just another way for the Bushies to get their way, polish up their reputation and thus get to remain in power! Well, sure, whatever, but international politics also have a significance that stretches beyond the US domestic Rep vs Dem balance. If there
is a renewed sense of compromise and co-operation between Europe, the US and countries elsewhere that were kinda benevolent or neutral but have been scared off by Bush's first term, well, thats good for us over here. Given that we're gonna be stuck with Bush Jr for four more years anyway, it'd be a lot better for us to have one who preaches co-operation and focusing on the things we do agree on and work on those, than to have one who uses every single opportunity to stridently call us "Old Europeans" out and steamroll through his intention to do whatever he wants no matter what anyone says. Now I get the fear that such a make-over will just help the Reps win another election in the end, and that in that sense it would thus be better for Bush Jr to keep on being bull-headed and strident, so he's more likely to be voted out next time. But I've never had much up with the Verelendungstheory thing about "the worse it gets, the better it is, because the more likely that'll make the revolution to come". Too much at stake, and it might just not happen, and then what?
So, to cut my long-winded digression short, no, I dont believe Rice
sincerely holds Amnesty style human rights above everything else. But if, for wahetever reason, thats the language they're going to use - that's the arguments they're going to focus on - then that will in turn, inevitably, if only through its effect on the echo-chamber of world politics, drive their political agenda to some extent as well, limit and determine the courses of action open to them. And thats all good. Like I said, for example, if Iran indeed keeps being demoted from Axis of Evil to a mere Outpost of Tyranny, its unlike we'll see another Iraq-style invasion. Vice versa, every single time Rice mentions Zimbabwe or Birma or Byelorussia on her hitlist of Countries To Do Something About, makes it more awkward for the Bush government to ignore those countries altogether, like they've done thus far. We gotta wait and see, but with stuff like that, I'd be pretty glad.
) I liked Bush's message, but the carrot should always accompany the stick. I still whole-heartedly believe that if he's serious about ridding the world of terrorists; every dollar spent feeding people, building houses and what not, will save at least a dollar in defense spending. Empathizing with and feeding people who've been taught we want to eat their children will go a long way towards winning hearts and minds. Countries voluntarily coming under the western wing should be richly rewarded... (not to be confused with paying bribe money like some A-hole was suggesting we offer Iran, just last night 
). The delivery of such a message has everything to do with how it would be taken. I guess I'm saying that treating others with more respect doesn't have to signal any change in direction at all. It may just be indicative of a tighter, better focus on the direction they're already heading in, depending on your point of view.
Don't bet on it. Low odds, plus chance favors the prepared mind.
(Btw, that land slide will be above ground. :wink:)
